The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 1053-2498 / 1557-3117
Current Publisher: Elsevier BV (10.1016)
Total articles ≅ 22,521
Current Coverage
SCOPUS
PUBMED
MEDLINE
MEDICUS
SCIE
Archived in
SHERPA/ROMEO
EBSCO
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

, Shelby Kutty, David Danford, Kurt Schumacher, S.R. Auerbach, D. Bearl, S. Chen, J. Conway, J.C. Dykes, N. Jaworski, et al.
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 368-376; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.011

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Katsutaka Mineura, Toyofumi F. Chen-Yoshikawa, Satona Tanaka, Yoshito Yamada, Yojiro Yutaka, Daisuke Nakajima, Akihiro Ohsumi, Masatsugu Hamaji, Toshi Menju,
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 343-350; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.1562

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Folker Wenzel, Matthias Kohl, Sevil Korkmaz-Icöz, Fabio Hoorn, Sivakkanan Loganathan, Yuxing Guo, Qingwei Ding, Pengyu Zhou, Gábor Veres, et al.
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 387-391; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.02.013

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40; doi:10.1016/s1053-2498(21)02250-6

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40; doi:10.1016/s1053-2498(21)02248-8

Brandon A. Guenthart, Aravind Krishnan, Aiman Alassar, Jai Madhok, Monika Kakol, Shari Miller, Sheela Pai Cole, Vidya K. Rao, Natalia Martinez Acero, Charles C. Hill, et al.
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.02.015

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Jan C. Kamp, Marius M. Hoeper
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 395-396; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.02.001

, Harrison W. Farber
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 394-395; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.2138

, Mandeep R. Mehra, Jennifer A. Cowger, Douglas A. Horstmanshof, Scott C. Silvestry, Pavan Atluri, Joseph C. Cleveland, Joann Lindenfeld, Gregory J. Roberts, Rupinder Bharmi, et al.
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 40, pp 323-333; doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.02.010

Abstract:
Background Several distinctly engineered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are in clinical use. However, contemporaneous real world comparisons have not been conducted, and clinical trials were not powered to evaluate differential survival outcomes across devices. Objectives Determine real world survival outcomes and healthcare expenditures for commercially available durable LVADs. Methods Using a retrospective observational cohort design, Medicare claims files were linked to manufacturer device registration data to identify de-novo, durable LVAD implants performed between January 2014 and December 2018, with follow-up through December 2019. Survival outcomes were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LVAD type and validated using propensity score matching. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed across device types by using nonparametric bootstrap analysis methodology. Primary outcome was survival at 1-year and total Part A Medicare payments. Results A total of 4,195 de-novo LVAD implants were identified in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (821 HeartMate 3; 1,840 HeartMate II; and 1,534 Other-VADs). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality at 1-year (confirmed in a propensity score matched analysis) for the HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was 0.64 (95% CI; 0.52–0.79, p < 0.001) and for the HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was 0.51 (95% CI; 0.42–0.63, p < 0.001). The HeartMate 3 cohort experienced fewer hospitalizations per patient-year vs Other-VADs (respectively, 2.8 vs 3.2 EPPY hospitalizations, p < 0.01) and 6.1 fewer hospital days on average (respectively, 25.2 vs 31.3 days, p < 0.01). The difference in Medicare expenditures, conditional on survival, for HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was -$10,722, p < 0.001 (17.4% reduction) and for HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was -$17,947, p < 0.001 (26.1% reduction). Conclusions In this analysis of a large, real world, United States. administrative dataset of durable LVADs, we observed that the HeartMate 3 had superior survival, reduced healthcare resource use, and lower healthcare expenditure compared to other contemporary commercially available LVADs.
Back to Top Top